Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.

A list of deputations received by the due date of the 3 December 2009 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

 

31.1       The Mayor reported that four Deputations had been received and invited Mr. Mark Dyson as the spokesperson for the deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

31.2       Mr. Dyson thanked the Mayor and stated that:

 

“On behalf of the residents of Tivoli Crescent I would like to highlight the significant issues that we now face due to the failure of the local council to properly consider the impact of the recently introduced Controlled Parking Zone to the local area.  In our view the consultation leading to the introduction of the current scheme has been extremely poor and inadequate, and furthermore we have not had satisfactory responses to our many complaints since the scheme’s introduction. 

 

We have now conducted our own survey resulting in another petition which I presented to Councillor Drake earlier this afternoon from all of the 97 properties in Tivoli Crescent that we have identified.  An overwhelming 92%(?) of these are now in favour of being included in an extension to the scheme.  We could not include Woodside Lodge as the council did in their 2007 survey as being part of Tivoli Crescent.  Importantly we have discovered that these 27 flats are, in fact, eligible to apply for residents’ parking permits in Zone A, despite having their own more than adequate underground parking facility.  So we would question the validity of the results of the 07 survey, that included them, upon which the overall ‘NO’ vote excluded us from further consultation.

 

With the introduction of this new residents’ parking scheme next to the Tivoli area the council have essentially created a free parking zone right on the edge of a controlled parking zone and a two minute walk from a busy commuter railway station at Preston Park.  This is Tivoli Crescent.  Residents now find it extremely difficult to park with virtually no off-street parking options, unlike Reigate Road, with non residents cars displaced from the zone being left for days or even weeks.  There is no overflow now available because Tivoli Crescent is bordered at either end by Woodside Avenue and The Drove - two roads now in the new zone with its excessive restrictions.  Even the council parking strategy officer, Charles Field, responsible for the scheme has had to admit and I quote: "We do monitor schemes as they first go in and ask that residents give things some time to settle down.  We do appreciate that currently commuters appear to be resisting paying to park, which has not been the case in other schemes." 

 

Residents now have first-hand experience of the issues this has created.  Most issues are around safety and accessibility which now affect families, children and the elderly.

 

Cars now park extremely close to each other.  Can councillors imagine what it is like having to take a detour around several cars with an elderly resident who has great difficulty in walking in order to get into a waiting vehicle?   Families, tradespeople and visitors routinely double-park in the street as they have little option. Parents with young children are understandably not prepared to leave children unattended in cars parked in a different street whilst they transfer their shopping. Tradespeople similarly have little option other than to double-park when transferring heavy tools and equipment to sites. All of this adds to the congestion in the area.

 

Parking on verges and corners has become much more frequent creating added danger for children who play in the street.  Visibility for traffic using the road has been reduced significantly.  We acknowledge the recent council planning notice to introduce ‘no waiting’ restrictions around the junction of Tivoli Crescent North.  However, short term, this will make parking even more difficult to find for residents.  These issues need to be addressed immediately and we cannot wait another two years to be slotted into a future timetable.  May we please remind you that the council has legal obligations in this respect under the Road Traffic Act of 1984.

 

What do Tivoli Crescent residents want now?  I refer to key points in your March 2008 environment report:

 

4.3.4   In order to draw up a viable scheme with clear boundaries, and to minimise any displacement, officer recommendation is to include all the roads around the Preston Park Station area in one parking scheme zone.

 

4.3.5   Only two roads were against inclusion and officer recommendation is that these roads could suffer displacement and cause confusion over scheme boundaries if they were excluded.

 

It is now patently obvious that Tivoli Crescent should have been included in the scheme, judging by the criteria applied to both Inwood Crescent & Millers Road.

 

We have liaised with local residents through meetings and door to door discussions.  The vast majority of residents believe that there is now no possible way forward without introducing a residents’ parking scheme in Tivoli Crescent.  However, as Zone A have found out to their cost any scheme need only be 9am-6pm on weekdays.  Anything beyond this is excessive and punitive, spoiling the character of the area and simply designed to generate revenue for the council.  We fully support residents in Zone A campaigning for a change to their scheme.

 

We have been informed by the Parking Strategy Manager that and I quote: 'if, after the scheme has been running a while, residents would still like the times or days reviewed, then the best course of action would be to raise a petition stating what is preferred.'  Residents have now raised two petitions and believe that Tivoli Crescent should be urgently included within the current Controlled Parking Zone A, with the restrictions on parking 9am-6pm excluding weekends.”

 

31.3       Councillor Geoffrey Theobald stated that “The council is aware that the introduction of a parking scheme may cause some displacement into adjacent areas although to what level is very hard to predict. 

 

For this reason we made sure that we consulted a wide area, not just the roads immediately next to Preston Park Station.  In October 2007 a letter was sent to every household in Tivoli Crescent, Tivoli Crescent North, Tivoli Place, Matlock Road, Maldon Road and Tivoli Road.  The letter did draw residents’ attention to the fact that nearby roads may decide to opt for a scheme and asked whether they wanted to be included.  However all these roads voted overwhelmingly against a scheme. 44% is a high response rate for a parking scheme consultation and so although officers have considered displacement effects the council did not feel able to proceed in these roads without a suitable mandate from the residents.  Equally officers felt that not to proceed with the scheme in the immediate Preston Park Station locality would not be fair on residents suffering parking pressures and safety issues and who voted in the majority for a scheme, hence proceeding with a scheme within these roads.  Following the decision at committee a postcard was sent to every address stating how their area had voted and which contained details of where to look up this report. 

 

There was a petition from Tivoli Crescent residents which was presented in April of this year.  The petition requested that all residents in Tivoli, Maldon and Matlock were consulted again to see if they would like to be included within a parking scheme.  Unfortunately, such extensive consultation requires a huge amount of time and resources and by this stage the Area A parking scheme had already progressed to the final Traffic Order stage. 

 

It was therefore too late to begin consultation again within the Tivoli area.  Any future consultation would have to look at the area as a whole rather than individual roads and the current timetable is committed up to 2011 consulting other areas of the city who have been waiting for some years.  However, the council will look at future schemes when resources become available.”

 

31.4       The Mayor thanked Mr. Dyson for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  She explained that the points had been noted and deputation would be referred to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation. 

 

31.5       The Mayor then invited Mr. Duncan Blinkhorn as the spokesperson for the second deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

31.6       Mr. Blinkhorn thanked the Mayor and stated that “This week sees two events which highlight the links between fossil fuel emissions and public health.  Firstly, as you all know the Copenhagen Climate Conference, where nations are struggling to agree a plan to curb CO2 emissions.

 

Secondly, and perhaps less well known and closer to home, this week is an anniversary – it’s five years since the Lewes Road and London Road were declared an Air Quality Management Area committing the City Council to make a plan, to curb vehicle emissions along these key routes, to protect public health – it’s a sort of local microcosm of the Copenhagen challenge.  If the plan that comes out of Copenhagen achieves for the planet what the Air Quality Action Plan has so far for the Lewes Road, then we really are all doomed.

 

I would like to draw your attention to some of the information in the supporting notes and, in particular, a graph based on the city’s Air Quality Action Plan which tells the story of air quality on the Lewes Road during the last five years, showing actual against predicted nitrogen dioxide levels.  You will see that after five years of monitoring and in spite of various measures to make the Lewes Road a sustainable transport corridor the air quality has, in reality, not improved significantly at all.  In fact, in 2008 it was much worse than even the ‘do nothing’ scenario which had been predicted back in 2004. 

 

These issues were illustrated, perhaps clearly, by the decision in May where planning permission for flats on the Vogue Gyratory on Lewes Road was turned down because the air was considered so foul it would be unsafe to open the windows.  You only have to spend a Friday afternoon outside the Lewes Road Co-op, as I often do, for your throat and lungs to tell the story about the quality of air there.

 

We have recently set up a Lewes Road for Clean Air Campaign because of our deep concern, local residents that is in the area, about the lack of progress on all of this.  We are part of Transport 21, a new umbrella of other local community groups intent on freeing our neighbourhoods from being overrun by cars and heavy traffic.  We believe that Brighton & Hove can be a vibrant and prosperous city, and the Lewes Road can serve this as an important transport route but do so without damaging the health of the people that live, work and travel along it and, one day, without damaging global climate.

 

The City’s Transport Plan points out that: ‘only reductions in car use of 10% to 20% will achieve a significant improvement in air quality that is measurable and noticeable’.  The 10:10 Climate Campaign, which the city recently signed up to and which we applaud and welcome, has engaged thousands of people, hopefully millions eventually, who believe that 10% is a realistic target for reducing emissions during the next year.  We believe that such targets are achievable if we approach them with enough ambition and imagination.

 

We’ve been conducting our own research which backs up the Department for Transport records that 18,000 vehicles a day use the Lewes Road.  Our research shows about 1,250 motor vehicles per hour up and down the Lewes Road but perhaps more significant than that we have found that three?quarters of those are private cars and the majority of those private cars, 60%, carry only one person, the driver.  We feel this is a totally inefficient and unsustainable use of road space and clean air.

 

We believe there is plenty of scope for reducing this part of the traffic. Our research has also found that many potential cyclists are scared to cycle along the Lewes Road because of the sheer volume of traffic and inappropriate parking.

 

We would like to direct you to examples, such as Copenhagen, which have impressive records on managing these issues and they constitute, certainly in the case of Copenhagen but also cities like Amsterdam, a genuine cycle city which has 250km cycle tracks, every taxi has racks for carrying bikes on, they have co?ordinated traffic lights to favour cyclists during the rush hour.  These are the sorts of ideas that we feel Brighton & Hove should be looking at.  They are not complacent about what they have achieved and have upped their target for people cycling to work from 30% to 50%.

 

We welcome the City Council’s current commitment to the 10:10 Climate Campaign and the vision of a low-carbon Brighton & Hove.  Lewes Road for Clean Air would like to see this commitment applied to transport.  We have also signed up to 10:10 because we aim to reduce traffic on the Lewes Road by 10% during 2010. 

 

We plan to encourage motorists, who use the road, to make a pledge to find alternatives to car use on at least one day per week.  We believe that a lot can be achieved, even within the next year.  We would like to call upon your support in achieving such an ambitious target within the next year.  We are proposing ideas like weekend ‘Park and Ride’ using empty university car parks, mass cycle rides to create a safety in numbers environment for cyclists along Lewes Road and perhaps signposts discouraging car use.  Those are the sorts of ideas I would certainly like to explore further and I hope 10% less traffic in 2010 is certainly a good place where we can work together to start.”

 

31.7       Councillor Geoffrey Theobald stated that “I am aware of your group’s campaign work and the interest that exists in this particular area of the city about this important issue.  Lewes Road is one of many important transport corridors now included in the city’s Air Quality Management Area and in which we have to seek to reduce pollution levels. 

 

We set out to manage traffic and tackle congestion through implementing several measures and planning future proposals, providing information on transport options and travel conditions through signs on our ‘Journey-on’ website: delivering new ways of reaching the city centre such as new ‘Park and Ride’ sites: new cycle routes and new bus routes and services such as the proposed bus-based coastal transport system along the seafront.  Making stations more accessible: managing, extending and enforcing parking schemes, reducing the need for some people to leave the city on a daily basis by increasing job opportunities and through the Local Development Framework planning strategy making changes to speed limits where appropriate, once the current city-wide review of speed limits is completed.  And something which I am personally very keen on, and if only the Government would listen and act on, is the re-opening of the Lewes to Uckfield railway line, because I am quite convinced that quite a few people drive their motor cars from Crowborough, from Uckfield, from Tunbridge Wells into this city when they ought to be coming by rail and that’s something that, you know, I personally very strongly support. 

 

I would just add one other point and that is that officers have checked the data that has been submitted with your deputation and we have found it to be incorrect and this is explained as follows:

 

          The 2005 monitoring value on the graph is incorrect, out of date 2004 model predictions are being used for 2010.  With the correct results for 2005 a downward nitrogen dioxide trend is seen.  On central Lewes Road most NO2 concentration is derived from sources other than cars, like heavy goods vehicles, buses and domestic equipment sources like gas boilers and cookers.

 

          Now if it’s helpful to you officers will be happy to write to you to explain this matter further.”

 

31.8       The Mayor thanked Mr. Blinkhorn for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  She explained that the points had been noted and deputation would be referred to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

 

31.9       The Mayor then invited Ms Jessica Balkwill as the spokesperson for the third deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

31.10    Ms Balkwill thanked the Mayor and stated that “I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present the results of our survey about the parking scheme that has recently been introduced in Zone A.

 

We have over the last two weeks knocked door to door over the entire affected area which is somewhere around 651 households.  We have managed to speak to 335 residents to gauge their response on four separate queries we have about the scheme.  The resounding response that we have seen is that the residents are unhappy with their scheme.  We feel that this is very disappointing given the length of time the council has spent introducing the scheme, the money it has cost and the hard work by the people in the council who have designed the scheme.  The majority of complaints are around the hours of operation which the majority of residents think are excessive.  Residents who originally voted in favour of the scheme have now voted for a review of this as they are unhappy with the hours.  We are now also paying for a service that was previously free and many feel we are not getting value for money and are, in fact, being penalised.

 

From the results of our survey we would like to propose that the council consider the following points:

 

Firstly, that the council needs to review their procedures for how the scheme was implemented.  It should not take between three and five years to put a scheme in place and then be this badly received.  Our suggestion within this is that the way the boundaries are defined could be changed and that to implement the scheme a minimum response rate from affected households would be needed.  This change would have prevented the problems we have had with Tivoli Crescent, Matlock Road and also Maldon Road.

 

The council needs to review the way it communicates with residents about the implementation of a scheme.  The most important information about the scheme, noticeably the hours, was not posted directly to the residents with an explanation of the proposed hours and the logic behind them.  Displaying the information on lampposts and in local churches is no longer a viable way to communicate in the modern world.  We believe that the council should have sent a letter to the residents outlining the proposed hours of the scheme and the reasons behind this and then invite them to vote on those hours.  This would have resulted in a scheme that suited the needs of the majority and not the minority who have pushed for its inception. 

 

The council needs to find whether parking schemes are for residents’ benefits or whether they are for revenue generation.  If the schemes are for the residents’ benefits then surely each scheme should be assessed on its own merits and designed for the needs of that area specifically.  We appear in our scheme to have opposing needs.  I believe the residents of Reigate Road initiated the campaign to protect themselves from displacement parking in Zone Q - Prestonville.  The residents of Reigate Road are not affected directly by commuter parking unlike most of the other roads in Zone A.  I am not sure why Reigate Road is so badly affected, as the neighbouring roads of Compton, Inwood Crescent and Millers seem unaffected and voted against the scheme.  The roads closer to the station, namely Hampstead, Kingsley, Woodside, The Drove, Robertson Road and Scarborough all suffer with commuter parking, as does Tivoli Crescent. 

 

It would seem to us that a more sensitive option would have been to include Reigate Road in Zone Q and open up Zone A for those affected by the station parking.  Currently the pay and display bays are virtually unused as commuters can park for free in the roads surrounding Zone A and although it is only a cost of £4 a day, which seems like a small amount of money, this adds 25% to the cost of a commuter trying to use a local station which many of us value greatly and specifically move to the area to take advantage of.

 

What we would like to do is give you the feedback from our survey which was over 335 households.  The main complaint for the people who responded was that the severity of the hours of operation were restrictive and as all the roads, apart from Reigate, suffer from commuter parking we do not need restrictions on the weekend.  Out of the 335 households 84% voted in favour of removing the weekend restrictions.  This also commuted to nine roads in favour and one road against that recommendation. 

 

We surveyed the households about the weekday hours to see if residents would prefer a 9am-6pm or a lighter touch styled scheme, as many residents have found the daily restrictions of 9am-8pm very restrictive in terms of communication with the community, families, childcare and the elderly.  74% voted that they would like a review of the weekday hours, which is eight roads in favour, one road 50-50 and one road against. 

 

We were interested to see what residents thought of the council’s consultation process, whether it was adequate and whether it was well communicated.  73% of the 335 households voted that they did not feel it was adequate, with eight roads in favour of the statement and two roads against.  We also proposed that visitor permits should be increased to an annual allowance of £100 per person per annum at a cost of £1, not £2 as the current cost is.  Almost everybody in the survey felt the scheme was too expensive, especially the permits.  The increase in allowance would mean that those who used the road during the day for childcare, tradesmen or the elderly who rely on non?professional visitors would be able to lead their life without invasion for a reasonable price.

 

Effectively, the final point, we have managed to have an 84% vote in favour of doubling the allowance of visitor permits and no roads against that statement at all.”

 

31.11    Councillor Geoffrey Theobald stated that “As you are aware we are also hearing from residents that changes have made a huge improvement to the parking and general environment.  I believe that is the next deputation saying that they are happy with the scheme. 

 

The 9am-8pm Monday-Sunday residents’ parking scheme proposal has, as you have said, been through extensive consultation, including leaflets with questionnaires and plans indicating proposed hours, days of operation and these went to every household.  There was little correspondence asking the council to change the hours or days of the scheme.  There was also a further opportunity to comment on the plans when the final draft Traffic Regulation Order was advertised in the spring of 2009 and all comments were included in the report to the Environment Cabinet Member meeting in July 2009.

 

The consultation procedures have also been through the Standards & Complaints Team who concluded that the consultation process had been carried out as per procedure and legislation and therefore correctly.

 

In terms of the finances, the council borrow the costs of setting up the scheme against the future income and schemes usually take about five to seven years to pay back the initial set-up costs.  Income from residents’ parking schemes must fund the ongoing maintenance, running costs and enforcement and any surplus must be spent on transport related projects, including concessionary bus fares, public transport subsidies and safety schemes. 

 

Any major changes, such as size of zone or time of operation would require considerable consultation and redrafting of the Traffic Order and would have to be considered alongside other areas on the list for parking scheme consultation.  However, we always advise residents to allow a scheme to settle in for a while before making decisions about major changes.  This is because it takes a while for parking patterns to change and for residents and visitors to get used to how the scheme operates and fits their needs.  If, after the scheme has settled in, a majority of residents would still like the times or days reviewed then the best course of action, as has already been said this afternoon, would be to raise a petition stating clearly what is preferred.  Any such change though would have to apply to the entire parking area and not just to one road, so we would need to know that there was wide-spread support for any alternative proposals.”

 

31.12    The Mayor thanked Ms Balkwill for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  She explained that the points had been noted and deputation would be referred to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

 

31.13    The Mayor then invited Mr. Paul Crawford as the spokesperson for the fourth deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

31.14    Mr. Crawford thanked the Mayor and stated that “The substance of my deputation is in front of you and if I can just make a few main points, I would like to tell you how vastly improved the quality of life in our area has been since the inception of the parking scheme in Zone A.

 

No scheme is going to meet the complete, unanimous support of all residents but it’s a substantial and drastic improvement.  As Councillor Theobald said all parking schemes take time to settle in and we urge you to agree that considering any changes to the scheme would be grossly premature while it’s only been in operation for a matter of weeks.

 

I can’t ignore the petition that was presented by Councillor Mitchell and I would like to point out that it was actually in the nature of a questionnaire and not a petition.  There was the opportunity to say whether you were for or whether you were against, so the gross numbers that are quoted do not give a representative view of all the residents in the area.  Without wanting to sound argumentative, I can’t allow the previous speaker’s claim to speak for all the residents of the area to go unchallenged.  There are many of my neighbours who are very happy with the scheme and I feel that the way in which the opposition has been presented is tendentious, unrepresentative and inaccurate and certainly that speaker does not speak for me or my neighbours.

 

We certainly oppose any change in the hours or days of the scheme.  We have bought our permits.  We don’t want to find that those of us who go out to work, come home after 6 o’clock and find the area swamped with white vans again (thank you very much) and we don’t want white van dumping starting all over weekends again as we have had to suffer for years in the past.  We would also echo the point which you have heard from several other members here today about the problems of other people in other parts of the city who have not been considered, even once, for some solution to their parking problems.  It would, of course, be selfish to reconsult Zone A so soon after it has last been consulted. 

 

Many of my neighbours and I have been working, for what, five years or so to get to the situation we are in now and we are very grateful, very appreciative of what has been done and we have no wish to sort of queue jump for other parts of the city where they are still suffering and where they haven’t had any solution proposed at all.  I think the consultation was professional, thorough and fair and took place over a long period and I completely disagree that it was inadequate in any way or that anybody did not have the opportunity to put their views across. 

 

As I say I have been to many meetings of the previous Environment Committee, now the Environment Cabinet Member meetings, and as I said we had to lobby hard and long to get to the position that we are at now.  We are very grateful and we resist any change to it, certainly for the time being until it’s had a chance to settle in.

 

Finally, if I could just thank our local Ward Councillors, Ken and Ann Norman and Pat Drake, who have been very supportive throughout the process and the lead officers in bringing the scheme to fruition, particularly Charles Field and Christina Liassides, who have been extremely professional, supportive and helpful in providing information and I would like to thank them for all their hard work and support and just finally to say we are very grateful.  Thank you for what you have done for us and please don’t wreck it.”

 

31.15    Councillor Geoffrey Theobald stated that “I do think that colleagues here and those out in the wider world will appreciate, if they hadn’t before, what a difficult job the council’s officers have in dealing with residents’ parking schemes where you have some people in favour and some people maybe, think the other way. 

 

I do want to thank Mr Crawford very much, obviously, for his remarks and, of course, particularly his remarks to the council’s officers.  I am very glad to hear his support for the fact that the consultation in his view has been done professionally and well and it is, as I say, rather nice to hear from residents that changes have made a huge improvement to the parking and general environment.  I agree with the suggestion, and I have said this already this afternoon, that schemes do need time to settle in and that’s exactly what Mr Crawford has said, because that enables residents both inside and outside the scheme to see how well it operates for their needs.

 

We do not review schemes as a matter of course now because there are other areas waiting on the list for consultation on new schemes.  However, we can make minor changes up to twice a year: for example, addition of a disabled bay or other minor changes to the signing or lining but any major changes such as size of zone or times of operation would require considerable consultation and redrafting of the Traffic Order.  It would have to be considered alongside other areas on the list for parking scheme consultation.”

 

31.16    The Mayor thanked Mr. Crawford for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  She explained that the points had been noted and deputation would be referred to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.